A bigger drought

As the rain sheets down in Brisbane this afternoon it's hard to imagine the large extent of drought-declared regions in Queensland. Most major towns in the Channel Country have received 0.0 mm of rainfall today: we're forecast to cop as much as 100 mm over the next 24 hours. Their need is far greater than ours.

D'you remember the last map of drought-declared area of Queensland I posted back in January? (See More drought, January 2014; and also Drought, January 2014.)

As of 1 March that map looked like this:

Source: Queensland Department of Agriculture, Farming and Fisheries

The drought is at the most widespread on record – 15 more shires were added – and it extends to parts of the coast for the first time. These include Noosa and the Fraser Coast. And in another extraordinary statistic, many of those shires are in the Wide Bay Burnett region, which was badly flooded only 14 months ago. Queensland's Agriculture Minister, John McVeigh, admitted that flood at one end of a 12-month drought assessment period and drought at the other has set a new precedent in drought evaluation. Which is probably not a claim to fame farmers in the region are relishing. One cane grower told the ABC that record-breaking drought following on so soon after flood was 'unchartered territory'.

Fairly predictably, the rest of the world seems to have cottoned on to the significance of record-breaking weather stats more quickly than either state or federal governments in Australia. UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said of freaky weather events:

If you take them individually you can say maybe it’s a fluke. The problem is it’s not a fluke and you can’t take them individually.What it’s doing is giving us a pattern of abnormality that’s becoming the norm. These very strange extreme weather events are going to continue in their frequency and their severity … It’s not that climate change is going to be here in the future, we are experiencing climate change.

California is also in the grip of a serious, record-breaking drought*. The questions being asked and issues pondered** are much the same as here is Australia. The West Coast's big dry is linked by some climatologists and scientists to the melting of Arctic sea ice. Warming at high latitudes has been greater than at mid latitudes – known as the Arctic Amplification – and this, it is suggested, has been responsible for a persistent ridge of high pressure over California, causing drier and hotter conditions than usual†.

Meanwhile, back on the other side of the Pacific, comes news this week that the development of an El Niño event is a distinct possibility during the southern hemisphere winter. The Bureau of Meteorology gives two-weekly updates†† on the Southern Oscillation, which you'll find explained via a link on the same page.

What El Niño tends to mean for eastern Australia is drier than normal conditions, which must be of great concern to Queensland farmers throughout the already drought-declared areas. What they need are prolonged periods of rain to replenish water supplies for the longer term. I'm happy to donate Brisbane's still-torrential downpour as well as bales of hay.

Here^ is a more wide-ranging context of a possible El Niño.

It's not just farmers who will suffer in this part of the world. A key driver of El Niño are extensive areas of warmer ocean temperatures in the Pacific. So it poses an extremely serious threat to the wellbeing of the Great Barrier Reef. The stress of higher ocean temperatures results in coral bleaching. And globally warming waters generally are too acidic for corals to survive. Another stress event may well be the final straw for the Reef. The Guardian's 'obituary' this week may well be apposite – and it's certainly worth watching^^.

* http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/historic-california-drought-af/23468432
** http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/opinion/what-to-do-about-californias-drought.html?_r=0
† http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/01/18/2883449/loss-of-arctic-ice-leads-to-drought.html
†† http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
^ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/26/3417812/el-nino-extreme-weather-global-temperature/
^^ http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2014/mar/great-barrier-reef-obituary

This post was last edited on 29 March 2014

Why we Marched in March

On Sunday I Marched in March through Brisbane with thousands of people. Guesstimates of just how many varied from 2000 (ridiculous) to 8000 (a tad optimistic perhaps). All I can add is that there was a far greater density of people – in Queens Square and in the streets of the CBD – than I have seen on previous occasions. In November, it was claimed there were 5000 in the Square demanding action on climate change. (And then, as on Sunday, Brisbane was far outnumbered by Melbourne, reputed to have 50,000 marchers.)

On this occasion there was no single big issue. If there was a rallying cry, it was 'Not in our name'. The message – to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his government – was loud and clear; that a whole load of policies that were not fleshed out, or even mentioned, by the LNP prior to the election campaign have not gone down well with many Australians. No one believed, for example, that 'stopping the boats' was going to involve such a secretive Ministry for Immigration and Border Security, the alienation of the Indonesian government, and conditions so intolerable in detention camps that they would lead to riot and death. Although many Australians may well have voted for change at the last election, they do not believe they gave Abbott a mandate to expunge scientists from Canberra; or exclude groups and individuals from long-standing legal rights to object to proposed resource development.

Whichever political party the marchers may, or may not, have supported in the past, did not seem particularly relevant here. This was an outburst of the moment.

It was the first time some of them had ever made a banner and taken to the streets of their town or city. Among the plethora of placards, some were witty, others deadly serious; some ridiculed, others pleaded; some stated bluntly, others questioned rhetorically; some were confined to two- or three-word slogans, while others attempted dot-point lists. The areas of concern were many and various: the treatment of asylum seekers; the absence of a realistic climate change action plan; protection of the environment, and the Great Barrier Reef in particular; health service provisions; Gonski education funding reforms; gay marriage; native title rights; the Trans-Pacific Partnership; penalty (overtime) rates; fracking; corporate greed; women's rights; the threat to democracy...

The overwhelming impression I got, however, was of a huge bunch of people that had come together out of concern for the direction in which their country is headed: a society that is less humane than it was; a nation that has lost credibility among its near neighbours as well as on the world stage; citizens overlorded by leaders motivated by greed rather than grace (in the sense of unconstrained good will); individuals who believe their rights have been eroded and their beliefs discounted. The signs spoke of fear for country and the loss of core values.

Critics have asked, what was the point of such action? This form of protest is surely outmoded and ineffectual. Interestingly, however, this weekend was organised on social media, and reported by social media, and those who tweeted while they were there, posted photos and are now blogging about the event, feel connected with like minds in a manner that could not be achieved by other means, especially by emailing or calling their political representatives. Empowerment has been generated by this populist movement, and it will not be debilitated by cynicism or debased by trolls.

Another example of this effect was the outstanding reaction to WA Greens Senator Scott Ludlam's speech a couple of weeks ago, in which he denounced Tony Abbott's policies, perspective and presentation. The not-far-short of 800,000 hits Senator Ludlam has notched up on YouTube so far happened because, thanks to social rather than mainstream media, people listened and thought: 'Yeah, he's got that spot on. At last someone has stood up and said exactly what I think.' And promptly shared it with friends across the country, if not the world. Mainstream media only covered it once it went viral. The power of the people will change the system. Or economic collapse. It is only a question of when.

Many in this great groundswell aspire to a different kind of political process and momentum. Increasingly, traditional parties fail to step up to the plate, motivated as they are by short-termism and fear of radical, unpopular but ever more necessary policies to develop renewable energy alternatives, conserve resources and curb our obsession with growth.

I was, and still am, a Labour supporter in the UK. But in Australia I have been so disappointed with a party that is almost interchangeable with the other one when it comes to the issue I consider to be top of the agenda. I have been dejected but now I realise that the people I spent a few hours with on a hot Sunday afternoon in Brisbane had more gumption than an equivocation of pollies will ever have unless a few more of them stick their necks out and truly represent those who elected them.

Bimblebox and the price of coal

                                                       

Last night I revisited Bimblebox, at the University of Queensland's Environmental Collective.

It's two years since I attended the film's premiere in Brisbane (see Bimblebox, March 2012). I had forgotten how wide-ranging is its content; how hard-hitting its message. The emotional impact was greater this time around.

Two years on, Waratah Coal's plans to excavate a priceless nature refuge have been approved, at state and federal level. Plans for nine mega mines in the Galilee Basin proceed unabated. Significantly less environmentally friendly governments have been elected in Queensland and Canberra. The mission of these governments is to develop and export ever more of Australia's extensive coal deposits, while abolishing environmental constraints they believe stand in the way of mining companies. They intend to inhibit protest. The owners of Bimblebox fight on; they await a decision in the Queensland Land Court following landowners' action against Hancock Coal's Alpha mine over groundwater (see Farmers vs Big Coal posts, September 2013): meanwhile, Waratah's scrub-pullers are not yet at the gate.

I know how extensive and invasive open pits and spoil heaps are in the Hunter Valley, but the images in the film shocked me all over again. A landscape degraded to this extent can never be adequately rehabilitated. Mines should not have been allowed to grow and coalesce in such a way.

It is heart-wrenching to watch farmers – men and women – break down as they make their seemingly hopeless case against all-powerful mining giants, none of whom would talk on camera. Landowners with beautiful, once-profitable properties understandably long for their farms to remain in the family. They have been robbed of that heritage, as well as their health and emotional stability.

The destructive impact of resource development on ecosystems is always well exemplified by the koala. The image below isn't from the film but admirably sums up Australia's priorities. A koala isolated from its gum trees is a pitiful sight. At Bimblebox, endangered Black-throated Finches (top, courtesy of I Montgomery) have been spotted among at least 130 species of bird that make the nature refuge a biodiversity hotspot in a vast tract of land mainly cleared for pasture. But neither rare finches nor cute koalas were enough to prevent Waratah being given the go-ahead.

NSW Wildlife, Information, Rescue and Education Service

Significant Aboriginal sites are disrupted, not only by mine excavation directly, but subsequently by subsidence above longwall panels or water seepage and diversion. I hope the irony of the damage done to the cultural heritage of Australia's oldest inhabitants – whose affinity to the land is fundamental to their beliefs – is not lost on mining executives or political decision makers.

The implications of breathing in particulates in mining areas are well known, but legislative protection and monitoring remains woeful in this country. Shortly after we came to live here, I watched a news report on dust in the Hunter. A bright orange cloud drifted across a valley, and I distinctly remember thinking: 'Hang on, isn't this Australia? Surely that can't be allowed'. 

Today, a month after the heat and the bush fires, I still can't quite believe that more hasn't been made of the mine fire at Morwell in Victoria's Latrobe Valley. Fires have only just been brought under control, and some residents are still not advised to return to their ash-covered, fume-filled homes. Health advice was confusing in the beginning; and huge questions remain about GDF Suez's decision to defer expenditure for upgrades and maintenance at its Hazelwood power station and less-than-adequate environmental restoration of its associated mine. It would appear that the mainstream media shy away from covering such a potentially catastrophic event that could happen in opencast pits across this country, especially if hot dry windy weather conditions are on the increase.

One of the most poignant scenes in the Bimblebox film is the Kerry Valley blockade in the Scenic Rim in January 2012. For ten days residents resisted Arrow Energy's attempts to put its coal seam gas rig in position on a property. At the end of their tether, locals threw down their hats in defiance and disgust at their treatment by Arrow, before police moved them on. The machine may have crushed those hats that day, but the energy company was deterred. They changed their plans and removed their contraption: there has been no CSG development in the Scenic Rim since.

Those people perhaps feeling a little jaded in the battle against big coal should take heart from a growing murmur among ordinary folk that enough is enough; that what's left in the ground needs to stay there. Fossil fuel days are surely numbered, but that murmur has to acquire volume and a greater sense of urgency if we are to get adequate action fast.

I believe economics will ultimately decide the fate of the Galilee Basin: unstable commodity prices; China's increasingly renewables-based energy plan; Australia's higher production costs. The federal government seems way behind the curve with regard to the 'carbon bubble', and their position is out of kilter with that of some of their closest allies*. They need a sharp prod before the bubble bursts. This can take the form of emails, calls, submissions, petitions, or taking to the streets. Criticism of Abbott is rising above party lines. One comment I read at the bottom of an opinion piece knocking the concept of marching in March resonated:

Why would you do something without an anticipated outcome? Well just because. It's called groundswell and you would ignore it at your peril.

* http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/11/ozy-coal-china-caps-consumption/6289365/
This post was last updated on 14 March 2014 

Solar blindness

There's so much writing on the wall these days there's barely room to graffiti the best line from Scott Ludlam's memorable demolition of Tony Abbott last week in the Senate:

Just as the reign of the dinosaurs was cut short to their great surprise, it may be that the Abbott government will appear as nothing more than a thin, greasy layer in the core sample of future political scientists drilling back into the early years of the 21st century.

Let us hope the PM is One Term Tony at most.

His government has, in a matter of months, removed science from governmental advisory services, stalled renewable energy targets, initiated the repeal of Australia's feeble attempt to limit its carbon emissions, 'streamlined' approvals of resource development projects by a number of methods including the silencing of objectors, and declared its intention not to 'clutter up' G20 in Brisbane in November with climate change issues. 

According to the World Wildlife Fund Australia's ecological footprint calculator:

If all countries consumed the resources that we Australians do, it would take the biocapacity of three Earths to support their lifestyle. The message is clear and urgent.

A nation with a hedonistic lifestyle and almost an obsession with gadgets, motor vehicles and dogs, Australia recently elected a government firmly wedded to the fossil fuel industry, despite this continent being the sunniest on earth. And in the self-styled Sunshine State, a like-minded government, who by their own admission are in the coal business, has called time on its 8-cent solar feed-in tariff. From now on householders will have to negotiate with energy retailers for any financial return on their excess electricity. It's difficult to imagine a much bigger deterrent to investing in solar panels. Have you ever tried to talk to your local energy company about your bill?

In an attempt to correct many mistruths about the solar energy industry, the Australian Solar Council has produced this infographic (http://solar.org.au/solarsavings/). 

The energy companies want you to use their energy so they make money. They don't want you to generate your own electricity and feed the surplus back to the grid: even if they pass the rebate cost back to you on your bill (if you are not self-sufficient, that is) and, controversially, that of your non-solar neighbour who then feels aggrieved because he's been led to believe he is subsidising you†. 

And the state government wants you to use their energy. It owns the power distribution companies who pay it a dividend, last year to the tune of $1 billion. So there's an inherent conflict of interest for the Energy Minister.

Solar rebates have not been responsible for electricity price rises. The most significant cause of increases to your bills is... no, not the carbon price either, but greater electricity infrastructure spending. Domestic solar energy producers don't use that infrastructure, thus taking pressure off it. They boost energy output in peak demand periods of the day (and year) – the most expensive – thus helping to reduce the cost of wholesale electricity, which is passed on to all users. John Grimes of the Australian Solar Council claims that solar energy's contribution actually kept the lights on during the recent Victorian heatwave.

Energy Minister Mark McArdle, who announced the demise of the feed-in tariff the other day, believes his job is to open up the energy sector to greater competition and lower Queenslanders' energy bills. He mentions nothing about investing in clean and cost-effective (in all senses) energy sources for the future. He (almost proudly) admitted to ABC Brisbane's Steve Austin that he'd never had solar panels, and has no use for them now because he's an empty-nester! Reduce your power bills: kick your children out.

In any political discussion – from opinion polls to Q&A – everyone says the same thing: they want cheaper electricity, the be-all and end-all of a lower cost of living. Any politician who dares venture that, in a seriously climate-changed world, we are all going to have to pay more for energy, would immediately forfeit his future.

Many of the LNP's key policies exhibit an enormous ostrich (emu?) factor. Changing from fossil-fuel-based energy generation to renewable sources – principally solar and wind because nobody mentions nuclear power here – seems to be not only beyond their ken but also would put them under enormous pressure from the mineral resources industry.

The tide is turning, however. The Australian Energy Market Operator has reassessed its forecast for energy demand*, and expects electricity consumption figures for 2013-14 financial year to be down on last year's, making four consecutive years of demand falls. Which makes calls for a brand-new coal-fired power station in Northern Queensland** even more alarming. Going down that road would mean overcapacity as well as increased tax bills for Queenslanders, many of whom probably quite like the idea of the relative independence solar panels offer, if only they were better able to afford the installation. And that's what Minister McArdle should be working on.

† modelling done in relation to the Renewable Energy Target shows that the benefit of small-scale solar next year will outweigh the cost of solar subsidies (source: John Grimes, CE of the Australian Solar Council)

* http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/10/energy-markets/aemo-downgrades-electricity-demand-again?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=606575&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt=

** http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/7/energy-markets/queensland-flirts-capacity-catastrophe

This post was last edited on 11 March 2014

A good day for Aussie politics (Ludlam demolishes Abbott)

That's a rare thing these days, right? But I haven't felt like this about Australian politics since... I got here. 

Having been briefly encouraged by the election in 2010 of Australia's first female prime minister, I was soon plunged into despair as the gender issue reared it's ugly head, again and again. Essentially, too many Aussie blokes couldn't hack a woman in The Lodge.

One of the joys of moving to Australia prior to the UK going to the polls in 2010 was our escape from the likes of Cameron and the Posh Boys Club. Since the 2013 election here last September, however, I have become increasingly debilitated by the vacuousness of current affairs. In Abbott's world – driven by predator capitalists and climate change confusists – it is more and more of a struggle to engage in meaningful political debate or, lately, even turn the computer on of a morning to read, blog or tweet.

Yesterday, a 7-minute video completely re-invigorated me: gave me back my hope, heart, enthusiasm, belief, determination and inspiration.

Late on Monday evening, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam rose in an empty Senate chamber in Canberra to invite Tony Abbott to Western Australia in the run-up to state's re-election next month. This was Ludlam's last speech in the Senate before 5 April, when Western Australian voters return to the polling stations to re-elect six senators, following the loss of more than 1300 votes during a recount last September.

As I publish this post, 378,364 people have watched the video of the speech, in which Senator Ludlam first dismisses a few Western Australian stereotypes, before systematically rejecting everything that Tony Abbott stands for and all measures that his government has moved to implement. At first you have to almost strain to hear the Senator speak, but gradually you become accustomed to his measured yet incisive tone. You begin to appreciate his disappointment and disgust, and the anger simmering beneath that cool and collected delivery. Conviction flows out of his every pore. Substance triumphs over soundbite. How refreshing.

Listen to it here: http://youtu.be/dtqrfiEV8Gsttp://youtu.be/dtqrfiEV8Gs

The phenomenal response to Senator Ludlam's speech reassures me that there are millions of Australians out west – and back east – who did not give Tony Abbott a mandate to repeal a nascent emissions policy; let mining companies loose wherever they choose to dig; deny that the droughts are biting deeper and the heatwaves lasting longer; banish scientists from government; cut foreign aid to the neediest nations; secretly stop boats and brutalize their occupants; alienate Asia-Pacific neighbours; threaten the ABC; downgrade the national broadband network; sign this country up to the iniquitous TPPA (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement); and so on.

The people can put a stop to this madness. But they have to take a leaf out of Senator Ludlam's book. No more just getting on with it, if that means keeping quiet. Raise your head above the parapet.

Scott Ludlam has reignited a spark and for that I thank him. Let's hope we can look back and conclude that this week was the start of a force for change.

Images downloaded from Twitter

Delaysia Airlines: an everyday tale of poor service

It was the first time we'd all been together in five years. The more excitable among us had been counting weeks, then sleeps, until Christmas in Brisbane could finally begin. Our family were flying in from the UK and Victoria.

The first contingent (of three) was due on Sunday evening. The first hint of trouble surfaced as we went to bed the previous night. The first leg was London to Frankfurt: then take-off for Kuala Lumpur an hour or so later at 10 pm our time (midday in Germany). They appeared to be still on the ground at 11, but I assumed it was a glitch with my flight tracking app, and went to sleep.

We awoke to the news they were still in Frankfurt, holed up in some bleak, cold airport hotel, without access to luggage. A computer error message had grounded the plane. It was difficult to find out from the airline, at their end or ours, when they were expected to reach Brisbane.

After about three hours I finally got hold of a man in Malaysia who told me our travellers' onward journey would resume on Sunday at 1 pm, not the scheduled time of that day's flight. In the meantime, my friend had discovered that, following a ruling in the European Court of Justice in November 2009, passengers would each be entitled to €600, following such a long delay within the EU.

We were constantly wondering. Given the number of flights there must be each day from Frankfurt – a major European hub – to even more important KL, why weren't seats being found for the stranded on alternative carriers? The 1 pm Sunday flight was using the original plane. How long can passengers be reasonably expected to wait for a plane to be repaired before another one is substituted?

It was harrowing tracking the little plane on the screen the rest of the journey. My tracking app seemed to have given up the ghost by Monday lunchtime as flight 135 was due to leave KL. I suppressed rising panic while trying to confirm it had taken off. The thought of further delay was intolerable. We'd already lost a precious day of our all-too-short time together. I needed them here, right then.

Only later did I remember the small fortune paid months earlier for flights at this time of year.

Unfortunately, there was worse to come. As time passed and our family did not emerge into the arrivals hall at Brisbane International on Monday evening, I sensed a problem. Eventually unsmiling faces appeared. Our visitors were carrying very little. It took a few moments to process the fact that the airline had added insult to injury by losing their luggage.

It transpired that the luggage belt in KL had failed before loading was completed. A decision was made to proceed without 30 people's bags in order not to delay the flight. Were they serious?

Talk about taking the edge off the start of a holiday. The bagless were given instructions for collection 24 hours later, off the next day's flight. (It's OK to just add that much additional weight to a flight, is it? Think how much you get charged if your bag is a kilo overweight.*) In the meantime, we had to conjure up much-needed changes of clothes.

The following evening we returned to the airport and congregated with others by the baggage handler's office at street level. We had not been able to get through to the office to confirm arrival, as instructed. We spotted one case immediately, and another arrived shortly from immigration. But the final trolley was not bearing the third. That was still in Frankfurt, having lost its tag. (I've always wondered about those tags.) I was amazed my youngest daughter didn't cry: I would have done; I nearly did.

How hollow sounded the promise that the straggler would arrive on Tuesday evening's flight. I couldn't leave it at that, and asked to see the airline's most senior representative on site. She was on the fourth floor, overseeing check-in, and she looked surprised as we rolled up, obviously unhappy and mistrustful. Her sidekick tried to get us to wait to one side. I don't think so. I asked for a call to be made immediately to determine the precise details of how the third bag was going to materialise. She said she couldn't do that there and then, but would find out and email me next morning. Only three-quarters of the way through an increasingly heated conversation did she offer my daughter an 'emergency' $70 to buy 'essentials'. She was keen to get rid of us: the queues of passengers had gone quiet.

Next day, I was somewhat relieved to learn that the bag was being flown by Singapore Airlines, my preferred choice for the kangaroo route. Later in the day she confirmed it was on its way from Singapore, and explained it would be met and escorted through immigration by one of her staff and put in a cab for delivery. I would receive a call when it had arrived safely in Brisbane.

The Singapore flight was due at 7.30 pm but landed ten minutes early. How long would you, could you, have waited for that phone call? I lasted until 9, which I thought exhibited extraordinary fortitude. I had my contact's direct line from the email. She was caught on the hop: she didn't know if the bag had landed. She'd text and find out. Text? 

Less than five minutes later my angst was building nicely when a taxi rolled up outside, with the bag. Do you know what? I didn't phone her back to let her know. As if she cared. I never received a call-back to make sure we had got it.

As the homeward journey loomed, no one wanted to fly Malaise-ia. I had one final managerial person to deal with prior to check-in, to retrospectively collect 'emergency' dollars for the other two initially bagless passengers, which had been offered by email. (They made the payment method difficult, but I'll spare you more detail.) Turned out it was the unsmiling sidekick. Nothing ventured, nothing gained: I asked for an upgrade for our intrepid travellers. The sidekick refused.

'I'm unable to do that.'

'Why?'

'That is not our policy.'

'Why not?'

'That's just not our policy.'

'But wouldn't it be a nice gesture after all the inconvenience and stress my family have suffered?'

Not a nice face and no more comment.

The delayed outbound passengers had been issued with complaint forms on their way through KL. I wonder how many of them followed through? Or could be bothered, their anger and frustration having been diluted by good times? In lost luggage situations, I believe airlines bank on the fact that you're dealing with baggage handlers or airport staff with little information and no authority; that you won't ask to speak to a senior airline representative, especially late in the day. And that you won't be aware of legislation that entitles you to compensation if you are seriously delayed; or be persistent about your rights when they later try to fob you off with a lot less than you deserve.

Which is what happened. The fob-off, that is. A clearly intentioned letter of complaint and claim was met with a derisory offer: free flights from London to KL. As if they'd ever use that airline again. A strongly worded second letter reiterated their right to compensation under European law and threatened appeal to civil aviation authorities (and perhaps an alert to the press).

The airline's first response completely ignored the European Court's ruling. Their second agreed to compensation (in the ultimate paragraph, I believe) as a gesture of goodwill. They accepted no liability. There was a lot of blah-blah about punctuality and maintenance records, and passenger safety, of course. They regretted our travellers had not accepted their offer of free flights. There was no apology. The accompanying paperwork for signature by the claimants included a promise not to share their experiences.

And payment was, let's say, tardy.

There can be no compensation for losing precious time with a family you rarely see, or the stress of not knowing, albeit temporarily, where your belongings are. At least they had each other during those wretched hours in Frankfurt. And they had support in Brisbane when they arrived with only the clothes they stood up in.

The airline's response to my family's experience was woefully inadequate, from a lack of information in Frankfurt to an extraordinary decision in KL, to a failure to act swiftly and effectively in Brisbane. The luggage fiasco was avoidable. A baggage check in Frankfurt, where they were changing airlines, would have prevented an additional 24 hours' stress.

I'm sure my family only received the 'emergency' funding because I made a fuss, and they only received compensation because of knowledge about passengers' rights. How many others on that nightmare flight got nothing? How much money did Delayasia save by keeping schtum about their obligations?

It's two years since I last wrote about a bad airline (see Jetstar. No stars. Nuls points, January 2012). I have never used that airline since, and I hope I've dissuaded other people from doing so. If you wish to fly between Australia and Europe, you have many options. Choose wisely. 

* When I asked this question, I was told other cargo would be left behind
This post was last edited on 11 March 2014

Things I don't get about Australia: #1 and #2

#1
So... Labor under Julia Gillard introduced a carbon pricing scheme in order to 'make big polluters pay', and therefore curb carbon emissions. Unfortunately, prior to the 2010 election, Ms Gillard had promised she would never do such a thing. But, without a majority and having to court Greens and Independents in order to govern, she changed her mind.

Leaving aside the fact that a significant proportion of Aussies males were, are, genetically averse to a female in charge of the country; and even greater numbers of citizens of either sex are seemingly unaware that climate action is going to necessitate higher electricity prices and a curtailing of many aspects of their privileged lifestyle; carbon pricing was never going to be popular, despite household rebates. The then Opposition, led by Tony Abbott, rested their pre-2013 election platform on three bullet points – stopping the boats (of asylum seekers), repealing the carbon 'tax', and getting the economy back to black. 

No one with even the slightest grip on political reality expected Labor, by now led by second-time-around Kevin Rudd, to win. And they did not. In the House of Reps, after the two-party-preferred vote, the Coalition (of Liberal and National parties) had 53.49 per cent and Labor 46.51 per cent.

As the old Opposition took up the strings of power, Abbott duly introduced his carbon tax repeal legislation, declaring that, since he had a mandate from the Australian people, the new Opposition should fall in behind his proposal for abolition. He knew, of course, that his only chance of getting the law through the Senate would be when its composition changes in July this year. Then, a scattering of more sympathetic cross-benchers will take their seats and the Greens and Labor may no longer be able to block the repeal.

Mr Abbott is in a bit of a hurry to get done what he said he would do. The stopping of boats isn't going too well at present, and the task of fixing the budget may be larger than Treasurer Joe Hockey. Hence the pressure on Labor to help him realise his carbon tax dream.

So how exactly does this work? Labor are supposed to abandon their emissions policy and then what? Return to it at a later date, maybe with a different name, when they would undoubtedly and immediately be accused of duplicity? And this mandate? Surely, only if there had been a referendum on that one issue alone, would Abbott be able to say the Australian people had endorsed the repeal of the carbon price. Black and white. No ifs or buts. Did any voters vote on one issue alone? Maybe Abbott's charm and personality were as big a draw as his promise to line the pockets of little people as well as big mining. And if a single issue could possibly be identified, wasn't it anyone-but-Labor? Time for a change, and all that?

How Labor repackage their climate policy between now and the next election is a massive challenge. I'd love to think it was top of their to-do list, but I see little evidence of that.

I have never come across the suggestion that an Opposition party support a recently-elected government to undo the former's legislation. Especially not important legislation. Drastically reducing Australia's vast emissions should be a bipartisan issue. And if the LNP were calling for all-party support to implement measures up to the task of tackling the crisis, there wouldn't be anything not to get.

#2
Obsession. There can be no other word for the national fixation about a convicted drug mule with a classically bogan name who was recently paroled in Bali. There is much speculation about the many possible reasons for this preoccupation. I tentatively explored the issue with one Australian friend, but we quickly lost the will to live.

I am extremely grateful for two things: that I didn't live here in 2004-05; the proceeds-of-crime laws in Australia.